tv Red Eye With Tom Shillue FOX News February 1, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
thanks for inviting us into your our home today. that's it for this special edition of "special report" ." fair, balanced, it is still >> tucker: fox news alert, president trump selected judge neil gorsuch of the tenth circuit court of appeals to be on the supreme court. ten ted cruz will give us his reaction. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," also tonight, the temporary ban on refugees, one illegal immigrant was opposed to it is here to say his. but back to the nomination of judge gorsuch. president trump had this to say. >> i am keeping another promise to the american people. by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court to be of the united states supreme court.
>> i respect that in our legal order, it is the congress and not the court to write new laws. it is for us to apply, not rework the people's laws. a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge. stretching for those he prefers to those the law demands. >> tucker: ted cruz of texas valves that he would get this nominee chosen for anything. he joins us tonight from the white house, senator, thank you for coming on. >> congrats on the new show by the way. and all the success. >> tucker: i appreciate that. is this the judge he would have chosen for the supreme court? >> i think judge gorsuch is a home run. i'm very, very happy. during the campaign, president trump promised the american people if he was elected, he would nominate a
principal constitutionalist to replace justice scalia. he kept his word tonight, he honor that commitment with a big big deal. >> tucker: did you know this was coming? >> it's remarkable, this is been the most transparent promise we've ever seen for a supreme court nominee. during the election last year, donald trump put out a list of 21 nominees and he made an ironclad commitment you would nominate from that list. we all had the opportunity to vet those 21. indeed, in the week that it proceeded, the white house and the president have been actively consulting with members of the senate, asking for our advice to consent. i think judge gore gorsuch's rd has been faithful to the constitution, demonstrating judicial humility and not legislating from the bench. that's what the president promised the american people, that is what we suspect in a supreme court justice.
>> tucker: will he get through the senate? >> i believe he will. he was confirmed which means not a single democrat spoke up in opposition to him and the question i would asked of democrats now is what has changed a decade ago, you were able to nominate him into the court of appeals. he has a decade of an exemplary record. any judge that agrees with the outcome of every case he decides is probably a bad judge. not which litigate you like better or outcome or policy, it is to follow the law. i've spent this week and last week reading many of gorsuch's opinions and i think it reflects exactly that humility and fidelity to law that that makes him a worthy successor to justice scalia. >> tucker: you are advocating for him on the merit, that's a political question but i think it is meaningful.
what is the scenario for that? >> i believe he will be confirmed. on the record, his academic record, background, extraordinary. he is a graduate of columbia harvard law school. john f. kennedy's only supreme court nomination -- he was a mentor of under him. she has demonstrated the intelligence, the faithfulness to the law. but i think republicans are going to vote for him but i also hope and believe a number of democrats will as well. those who are willing to confirm him ten years ago, i hope that they will make the same decision now. >> tucker: enough that he won't have to worry about the majority. >> we will see if democrats decide they want to try to filibuster this nomination. i hope they do not. i think that would be a mistake for them.
one way or another, i believe the senate will confirm judge gorsuch to the court, the democrats are not going to succeed in filibustering this nomination. president trump it's going to meet his promise to the american people. this was really a referendum on what kind of justice could replace justice scalia and the senate is going to help president trump meet his commitment to the american people. >> tucker: one way or another. message received on that. if he is or when he is confirmed and goes to supreme court, what practical difference will it make? can you name a couple decisions pending before the court? >> the justice he is replacing is antonin scalia he was truly a lien of the law. extraordinary conservative, someone i knew and respected. i believe that judge gorsuch is likely to follow in the pattern of justice scalia.
following the law, vigorously defending the bill of rights. whether religious, second amendment, our basic rights protected under the constitution. what that means it's it will maintain the balance of power in the supreme court. if hillary clinton had been elected and a judicial activist had been elected, we would've lost much of our fundamental liberties. we would've lost or our second amendment rights would've been in peril. i believe based on his record, judge gorsuch will respect federalism and separate separaf power. i will tell you a story, when antonin scalia was nominated to court of appeals, he got a call from his family priest back in new jersey. the priest said nino, the fbi called and they are asking questions about you but do not
worry, i did not tell them anything. >> tucker: [laughs] that's pretty good. i think a lot of conservatives, certainly those that voted for in the primary, but even those who didn't look to you as a good judge of judgment. just to be totally clear, judge gorsuch has your seal of approval. you conceivably would have chosen him if you had been elected. >> absolutely, i would say that. i read a number of his opinions. for anyone to succeed antonin scalia is a an enormous responsibility. on the court of appeals, a proven record to suggest he will do that. my advice to the president in the white house was look for a proven record. do not roll the dice, do not let someone say trust me but look for a proven record because the stakes are too high for us to take a chance. i think that's exactly what president trump did here. he looked for a proven record and kept his commitment to the
american people. >> tucker: i'm sure democrats are going to say before, president obama put up merrick garland and republicans refused to put that forth. why should they agree to play ball? what would you say to that? >> you are right, that's the argument many democrats will make. i think they're fundamentally different circumstances. when scalia passed away, he passed away right in the middle of the american election. for 80 years, a supreme court vacancy was never confirmed during an election year. before any nominee was made, the republican majority quite rightly said we are going to leave this forth the american people. the presidential election, this seat is enormously consequential and we the people can decide which direction it's going to go. the selection with them anyway a
referendum on the court. there are more important on the ballot than that question. the american people overwhelmingly chose a principal constitutionalist who will be faithful to the constitution and bill of rights versus a liberal judicial activist which is what who frequent and promised would appoint. >> tucker: interesting point. thank you for joining us tonight, senator cruz. activists on the left are planning to protest president trump's choice well before it was actually made. now a pulsating blob of humanity has protest on the steps of the capital. she joins us from the steps of the supreme court where she is protesting as we speak. thanks a lot for coming on. >> thank you so much for having me. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and your viewers. >> tucker: thinks. i am glad to from you.
i got the press release, you didn't know who the president's pick was going to be. but he believed it was going to be extreme. if it had been someone on the left, if michael moore had been the nominee, would you still be protesting? >> we looked at the list of proposed nominees that trump gave us, we did our thorough research. we were concerned about any of those nominees. we were not to protest anyone, we were out here to protest somebody who is chosen from that list. about which we had real concern concerns. the decision, the reason we are here tonight is it because it makes a big big difference to the american people, who fills this lifetime seat on the supreme court. somebody who respects the constitution and the law and understands they are there to protect all americans, not just the powerful and wealthy and
corporations. unfortunately, neil gorsuch is not the right man for this job. >> tucker: tell me why. i think a lot of people share your view. a lot of people voted for donald trump because they were suspicious of big money and corporations. a lot of people share your concern about people in power. what specifically about this that nominee makes you believe he is unacceptable? >> part of his record shows that he is done for wall street, makes it difficult for folks, who were injured by corporate wrongdoing to hold those corporations accountable. that means consumers, workers and women who are discriminate against in the workplace, people who want to clean air and water. we have real concerns about his record. real concerns about whether he will have the independence and judicial temperament to be of justice for all the people. not justice of the wealthy and
powerful. >> tucker: if i can ask you to be specific about that, a friend of wall street and that he is insensitive to women and workers. why do you believe that? what specific decisions are you referring to? >> the hobby lobby case for example. came out of a panel that judge gorsuch sat on. this was a case that said corporations are allowed to use religious liberty, their own as a reason to discriminate against women in terms of their able to access con perception coverage. that is a really serious serious concern. for a lot of women. it's not just for women but that principle that a corporation can justify its actions based on some false notion that it has religious liberty rights, the exercise of which can be defended. it's not just for women, but lgbt q people.
we are concerned about that. >> tucker: you don't believe that employers ought to be allowed to stand on their religious principles in the way that they act? >> we don't believe corporations have the ability to exercise religious liberty and have that interfered with, we don't believe corporations should have religious liberty corporations that should be in the way of someone's contraception. >> tucker: i don't believe it was corporations, it was employers. the root of the hobby lobby case was can you force people to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs? you think the government can force people to do that? >> whether or not corporations, a corporate entity. not an individual. has religious liberties. there's also real concerns about
we need somebody who is fair-minded, who can be objective. who can make sure we can have the independence to push back on whatever they need to push back. past weekend. really serious concerns about whether the trump administration respected the constitution and even respected the courts. >> tucker: if i can just interrupt -- you are protesting a specific nomination. >> we are protesting a nominee and questioning whether that nominee has the and dependent mind, will be a fair arbiter and have the independent judgment to be able to make decisions about whether or not -- it's been constitutional. >> tucker: i can't let you filibuster, i just have to ask
you a simple question. what suggested he doesn't have that in the fairness? >> if you look at his record, he makes it very difficult -- -- >> tucker: what specifically? >> entities that want to hold corporations accountable should not and cannot get their day in court to do that. >> tucker: can you give an example of that? >> a number of cases. class action remedies, he said that -- in his judicial record -- >> tucker: he doesn't believe in any class action? >> people should be limited to their ability to access class
actions in which to hold operations accountable. >> tucker: you went to law school, i know you have details. where are they? >> i'm not going to go through case names for you. go to our web site, you will be able to see cases. where he demonstrates that -- we have really serious concerns whether or not she he has the judgment. >> tucker: i got it. i was hoping for some specifics. last question. i've been through an awful lot of these, it almost always comes down to calling the nominee a racist. will you be making that case? >> i don't understand the question. >> tucker: i don't think i've
seen a republican nominee not called a racist on the left. >> i don't think that should be said here. i don't think that's the issue here. nominated to the bench who understands a corporation and the laws of this country are for all of us, not just the powerful and wealthy and the privileged. >> tucker: i agree with you on that. >> that's what we think the american people want to see in their justice we do not believe that neil gorsuch it's that bill. >> tucker: i agree with the first part. i don't think you made the case here. >> we will be making that case. and we believe we will see support on both democratic and -- >> tucker: marge, we will have you back when you have a full case. >> not preemptively judging it all. we are serious about this. the american people is
understanding it's not for the people. >> one justice scalia passed away suddenly last february, i made a promise to the american people. if i were elected president, i would find the very best judge in the country for the supreme court. i am a man of my word. i will do as i say. something that the american people have been asking for from washington for a very, very long time. >> tucker: for 29 years, judge antonin scalia was the anchor of conservatism. he has been gone for close to a year now and now the president has been chosen neil gorsuch to carry on his legacy. joining us now is fox news, sr., legal contributor, judge andrew napolitano. >> i have a static over this, tucker.
he is probably the most worthy jurist in the country to fill the shoes of antonin scalia for a couple of reasons. a healthy skepticism about the ability of the government to regulate the economy and regulate our personal lives. i'm so sorry that your prior grassed really didn't know what she was talking about. she should welcome somebody like neil gorsuch because he interpreted the first amendment to mean what it says. congress shall make no law interfering with the free exercise of religion. whether it is a mom and pop operation or a corporation or a bigger corporation, you are exactly right. the government cannot force you to give a benefit to your employee when the giving of that benefit violates your religious beliefs and when the employee can get the benefit elsewhere. and the supreme court upheld that decision of judge gorsuch. that is a small picture that i am happy about. the big picture is judge gorsuch as you know embraces the idea of
original is in which simply means the meaning of the constitution was fixed at the time it was ratified and it has only been changed each time it was amended, 27 times. if it's going to be changed again, the states have to amend it. the court cannot amend it. it's not what justice ginsburg thinks it is, a living breathing document the changes when the politicians need to change. >> tucker: what's interesting is that originalists tend to take a view of executive orders because it specifies congress make the laws, not the executive. i wonder since the last several presidents have relied heavily, if their implications on that. it's because there would be implications on that if the executive orders are paint amount to making the law. for example, when barack obama issued a series of executive orders, 24 of them, affecting immigration, a trial judge in texas ruled this is not the president telling the department
of homeland security how to enforce the law, this is the president changing the law in a way that the congress specifically rejected. that was repelled by the united states court of appeals and then the supreme court split on 84-4 tie, which upheld with the fifth circuit said. what president trump is doing so far not only is everything he promised he would be doing but within the contours of the law telling the people who work for him in the executive branch and how he wants them to exercise their discretion. >> tucker: interesting. i should just say to my viewers, i know you've met with the president a couple times, we have a pretty good advantage on this. what do you think this new justice, if confirmed, will make of some of the key cases coming before the court in the next year? >> there are some very interesting cases coming, they are coming in april. very significant. to go months from now.
if chuck schumer can delay this confirmation, he will deny judge gorsuch's fingerprints on these cases and they are profound. can the department of education force every school in the land that accepts federal funds, literally every school to reconstruct their bathrooms or transgender students? if a state the sides -- you are not going to believe this, old automobile tires and turn them into a parking lot, can a catholic church use the parking lot for students to play a game of wiffle ball on them? the court below, it said no, that violates the first amendment. it is a conspicuous aid to religion. these are two controversial issues that will come right before the court, very, very
excessive -- the environmental protection agency, four environmental protection challenges where epa won below. if judge gorsuch is not confirmed, than the epa will prevail. if gorsuch gets to hear it, he will be the dispositive vote. >> tucker: you think on all of those decisions -- it's pretty clear what the traditional conservative would rule on that side. >> i do. you take a traditional conservative view and add in a healthy scalia lake dose of skepticism about the government and you equal neil gorsuch. >> tucker: let me ask you a more rhetorical question. we watch a lot of supreme court justices come and go. i don't think i've seen will become more conservative during his or her more time in the court, do you see that? >> the only one that moved it
all was justice scalia. there's a tendency to become more activist. here is a kind of activism i would like to see, a constitutional activism, and activism that says to the government, congress shall make no law means no law. you're not going to get us to fudge on this one. i think you will find judge gorsuch not moving, solid as a rock just as he has been on the circuit court. >> tucker: judge napolitano, thanks for that. when we come back, we will continue our coverage of this breaking news. it is a break deal. democrats say they will oppose who trump picked, no matter wha what. we are joined by one of thososos
>> i have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most of the important decision the president of united states can make is the appointment of a supreme court justice. >> standing here in a house of history, acutely aware of my own imperfections, i pledged that if i'm confirmed, i will do all my powers permitted to be a faithful servant on the constitutional laws of this great country. >> tucker: t the moment may be of the season, president's selection of neil gorsuch. we are joined by legal expert, shannon bream. what is your reaction? >> i do not know if you can hear them, but they're up and protest
all night. they are pretty loud. they are gathering and may be a bigger crowd. they may come over here because they are very fond of the live tv cameras tonight. they have signs tonight that they oppose and then they had a little place to write in gorsuch in markers. there over here chanting filibuster, they are yelling about impeaching president trump. these are people who were not going to be happy about any picked that they got. something i know you will like about him is that he likes to fly fish. maybe you guys can do a special friend zone, you with the nominee to the supreme court. he is an interesting guy. he likes to hunt, fish, he is an outdoorsman. a very serious jurist as you know as well, if he is confirmed, he would serve on the bench alongside his former boss as a fellow justice, justice anthony kennedy. interesting set up. he is been very, very faithful
to what he views it is a correct viewpoint. you would hear to the law, you do not do outside anything of that. i would like to redo cordoba versus city of albuquerque. our view of joining -- it's carefully drafted, judges original public meeting. it is incumbent on him a lot about what judges have to do, regardless of political party. somebody who sailed through his last confirmation, there is no objection to him. he is unanimously qualified by the bar association, not of very right-leaning association. the president had to know that. >> tucker: episcopalian fly fisher. i think we will all agree that is a fine start.
shannon, thanks a lot. even before the president announced his selection of judge gorsuch, democrats in congress were saying they plan to resist his confirmation to the end. one is eric, a member of the house who played no role in the specific confirmation process. he characterized the pick as extremist. immediately after the pick coming he tweeted... congressman joins us now from the studio, thank you for joining us. a little weird to call a guy extremist before you know who he is. >> it's a practice with donald trump's extremist views. what americans want to know right now is if this nominee is going to show more respect for women, more respect for muslims and more respect for voting rights than the president nominated. >> tucker: it sounds like you think you know the answer already.
>> it's something that justice garland never got. >> tucker: i don't think it's a crazy point but were you to sing the other day you need to resist? before you know anything about the guy, anything about him, just a generic guy. >> we need to resist president trump's extreme views. whether justice gorsuch believes that the government belongs in a women's doctor's office when she is making a decision about her health care. who is terminally ill, he has written a law about opposing the right to die for terminally ill patients. people want to know -- goat >> tucker: he hasn't ruled on any abortion cases, i just want to know if you agree with this or not though. all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional picking of human life is always wrong. >> they are all valuable but roe vs. wade says a woman has a chance to make her own right
about health care. >> tucker: i'm asking to assess what he said here. this is a general statement. you agree that all human beings are intrinsically valuable? and the intentional taking of human life is always wrong. >> a woman with her doctor about her own body, a person who is terminally ill about whether they want to die in peace. he has chosen that the government should intervene. >> tucker: the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. if you cannot agree on that... what do you think? the intentional taking of human life by private persons. you agree with that statement or not? >> what he has shown in his legal career -- >> tucker: are you really afraid to say the intentional taking of human life is wrong? you are afraid of the abortion lobby. come on. >> a woman has a right to make her own decision about her own health care. >> tucker: do think it is the
taking of a human life? abortion? >> before viability, she should make her own decision, in the case of her own psychological health in -- >> tucker: is that human life or not? >> if viability, before that -- the case case of rape or incest -- >> tucker: here is what you wrote, i hate to do the gotcha. it's kind of my job. march 16th you wrote with national security issues before the president, nothing
would come for our enemies more than to not confirm the supreme court nominee. do your job. >> merrick garland. he should have gotten at least a hearing, don't you think? >> yeah, i kind of do think that. i am for hearings. but to think it i would comfort our enemies if the senate does not seek that? >> if the senate does not give a judge a hearing, yes. >> tucker: that's not what you wrote. you said nothing would comfort our enemies to dan to not confm him. is it only situational? >> the jury is still out. give me 160 characters. >> tucker: what you think our enemies think of this? i am against him if democrats think that. >> i think this democrat has tt
has the thinnest skin. he should at least get 60 votes in the present. won the popular vote and has first nominee? >> tucker: it makes kind of sense but if you think about it, it doesn't. it kind of falls apart. president clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. trump won. trump won the election, it's a moral question. there are people who said oh, he is not legitimate. i always thought that was so stupid. why doesn't the same standard applied to trump? >> i think it's about mandates, if you don't overwhelmingly win back the popular vote, as president obama did -- >> tucker: so there are
degrees of victories? so you are president but are you really president? >> i think our country right now could use a consensus candidate. how he feels about voting right rights, how he feels about -- >> tucker: if someone is opposed to abortion come up someday believes the taking of human life and a lot of people do think that, if you think it is actually killing somebody, it doesn't make any sense rationally. that doesn't mean you are against women. a lot of people feel that way. i know women don't believe that because it's murder. >> a lot of my people at my church oppose a view to me. but he is a judge, if you cannot follow the law and he will overrule a law that says a woman is not for her own health care, that is wrong. >> tucker: you are all for that though. all of a sudden he has some kind
of moral criminal? >> he's not supposed be an activist judge but follows the law. i hope he does. >> tucker: if he was for overturning citizens united, -- >> he has to carry out the president that it has been set. the precedent. >> tucker: so you think it is wrong to try to overturn roe v. wade but it's okay to overturn citizens united. >> if you go through the constitution -- >> tucker: if you go through the constitutional process. that would be okay, right? [laughs] i am trying, i'm trying so hard. last question. the so-called nuclear option on the filibuster and i think most people agree -- it is there for a reason, try to convince just
more than your party get on a decision. before anyone has been dominated, democrats say we are against us and we are going to fight this no matter what. what they are saying is basically we dare you to get rid of the filibuster. to really want to go there? is it worth it? >> i am not going to speak for the senators, i think he deserves a hearing. if he does not get two-thirds, the democrats are probably wron wrong. >> tucker: you know what is going to happen. when people behave and an unreasonable way, you said republicans were unfair with merrick garland, but continuing to be unreasonable and saying we think your nominee is an extremist or hates women or muslims, even before we know his name, is in that kind of accelerating the cycle of stupidity and extremism that is hurting us? >> i will give us nominate a chance. i attacked president trump who has exercised nothing but
extremism. we have to resist president trump's extreme agenda. if this individual must interfere with the remittance rights to choose and overturn roe v. wade then that should be resisted. >> tucker: is there a law on the democratic side that you have to go away from talking points this closely? it's abortion, not about women choice. >> i would ask a woman. i don't think she views it as harshly as you do. >> tucker: a lot of women do. >> is a personal decision. >> tucker: can't we just call it what it is a? >> we should call it the rule of law. >> >> tucker: you said the other day the president trumps band was immoral. how was i to eat in moral? >> refugees helped our country is much as our country has
helped refugees. >> tucker: tell me how. my chief of staff came over here on a jude raft from vietnam >> tucker: here's the point, it would be fair and it certainly is within the context of american history to say we have reasons for wanting not a lot of people to come to this country. >> the only exceptions are for religious minorities. of those seven countries, there no religious minority that is -- >> tucker: i don't understand a lot of arguments that i am hearing in the political sphere recently. one of that is most confusing is this is outrageous because he did not include saudi arabia, egypt, and jordan. on the other side, it is a muslim ban. the biggest arab countries egyp
egypt, if he doesn't ban people up from those countries, why is it not a muslim ban? >> the refugees are coming from the seven countries. >> tucker: but saudi arabia is a central country and islam. >> there are no of muslims who are minorities. they would never be allowed to come over there one exception that he carved out. that is only benefiting people who are not muslims. >> tucker: is not a ban of muslims, saudi's can still come. one is a cleaner and more accurate way say it's not a muslim ban. they are banning based on their country of origin. >> forcing countries to -- >> tucker: you are calling it a muslim ban. that's not really a fair thing to say. >> we are not safe because so many of our allies have taken on refugees. we need them to fight terrorism. if they do not see us as a team player, they are not going to corroborate.
>> tucker: there really contagious now. >> they will use this to recruit that we hate muslims. >> tucker: isis is mad at, they may want to start suicide bombings after this. how do you think the refugees taken into germany have affected germany? >> we have intensive fighting here. >> tucker: what about france? >> will what about jordan? they are of relatively safe place. they have taken in millions of refugees. they are in an upward glide. >> tucker: are you really arguing that jordan is better because of refugees? >> because of its leadership. to be a faithful partner in that. >> tucker: we should help jordan, i agree. >> if we are saying no refugees, just go to jordan, why would jordan want -- >> tucker: jordan has been
destabilized, they have been in disaster for germany, france, holland, scandinavia, specifically sweden. if they have been a disaster for all these other countries, why do we want that? >> we all have a part. we should vet them. >> tucker: if it hasn't worked for anybody else why should we do it? if i see you burn your hand and you say i have good medical care, i still don't want to do that if i'm going to burn my hand. >> is a very selfish thing and alienates us from the countries with that we need help to fight terrorism with. >> tucker: for 50 years they've taken in refugees and it has hurt those countries. why would we not want a piece of that? you look at germany and you say i want that? sweden, great job. do you really think that? >> i would argue our screening
process is the tightest of anyone that i have looked at. i think we can take more as long as we're screaming them correctly. it would help our allies in this fight. they are looking at us and saying the united states are not really in it for anyone but themselves. >> tucker: congressman, great to see you. as we said yesterday, president trump fired acting attorney general sally yates, her replacement dana boente says he will. lawsuits appearing all over the country, we are speaking with a journalist, a pro-illegal immigrant organization, brought over from the border at the age of 12, he joins us now in california. great to see you tonight, thank you for coming on. >> this is where i came from. when i was 12. >> tucker: in mountain view? very nice town.
you came over at 12, i was thinking about that, what would happen if i showed up in the philippines as a noncitizen, there illegally and started saying hey, philippines, i hate your immigration policy and by the way, i think you are racist for not liking me. and i think maybe i will file some lawsuits and be quiet and accept my illegal presence. >> first of all, i was 12 so i'm not sure i would be asking those questions, the decision was made for me. when it was really interesting as you probably know is the relationship between the philippines and the united states -- the philippines was a protectorate of the united states with puerto rico. that's why there's so many philippine filipinos in the united states it is an interesting
relationship. >> tucker: a very old one. a very noble one also. >> i have to say by the way, as a 12-year-old, i'm not sure i would ask those questions. it wasn't not on my own decision to come here. >> tucker: you are not 12 now. you are saying the united states does not have a right to say you are not allowed to be here. >> the country has a right to define and defend its borders. any country has a right to do that. at the same country, we have a right to ask hard questions of ourselves about wire people even coming here? do you think i came to this country so you could beat me up and call me illegal criminal on national television? >> tucker: i could hardly beat you up. >> but when you called me illegal, words matter here.
>> tucker: i believe that. >> how do you legalize people if they are illegal? >> tucker: is not the end of the conversation. you are arguing something that contradicts itself. erasing a country has a right to have laws about who can be here and who cannot but you are simultaneously arguing people that are illegal here should not be referred to as being here illegally or illegal. >> being here illegally, being here without documentation is a civil offense, not criminal. >> tucker: what's your point? >> on behalf of the people here illegally, many people came here legally and overstayed their visa. >> tucker: okay... >> these are facts, tucker. you don't operate in facts. >> tucker: i am not contesting
-- no name-calling here. >> i'm not calling you names. i operate in facts. >> tucker: stop that. my question to you, what does that have to do with anything? you're not answering my question is, if a country has a right to determine who is here and under what circumstances, what are you arguing about? what is the argument if you are here illegally, what am i missing? >> why am i here? what are the root causes of my migration? what does the foreign policy have to to do with migration patterns? these are the harder questions. >> tucker: i get your argument. this is the new argument. america has no moral standing to say people can't come here because we have done so many bad things that we deserve illegal immigration.
>> i'm not going to fall into this hole. we must be fully aware of our own history. i got that statement from the african union was really interesting. slaves built america but we can't accept refugees? >> tucker: you claim to be of journalist, maybe you can explain -- since you are in the explaining business -- >> i actually won part of a pulitzer so i actually am a journalist. >> tucker: tell me why, because the united states had slavery, a grave sin, doesn't have the right to say no to refugees? unpack that. >> i absolutely agree with you that a country has a right to define and defend its borders. why are people here? that was forced migration of
people. >> tucker: what is your point? i don't understand. that is bad we had slavery? i agree, it's bad. >> you don't deal with context. if you're confused because i don't think you even realize the whole history of this country. >> tucker: tell me why it is significant. what are you saying i guess is the point. i want to hear a rational argument from you. >> there are reasons why people are coming here. yes, the country has a right to defined and defend its borders but we need to as the harder questions. why are the even coming here, tucker? >> tucker: what does that mean mean? we don't have a right to tell them not to come? >> tucker, here's one answer. he put a sign up that says keep out, in 10 yards, what you say? job wanted.
it is addicted to cheap labor, our country. while you try to criminalize these people, what do you do to all these american employers who are addicted to cheap labor? >> tucker: you're absolutely right about that. but there are american citizens that are not benefiting by that. but because employers -- we have to have it? >> you are talking to an undocumented employer who hires people. >> tucker: we are out of time. you are definitely bragging. fact, fact bomb. up ahead, we continue our live coverage of trumps court pick. neil gorsuch, is he
constipated? trust number one doctor recommended dulcolax use dulcolax tablets for gentle overnight relief suppositories for relief in minutes and stool softeners for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax, designed for dependable relief so if ydead battery,t tire, need a tow or lock your keys in the car, geico's emergency roadside assistance is there 24/7. oh dear, i got a flat tire. hmmm. uh... yeah, can you find a take where it's a bit more dramatic on that last line, yeah? yeah i got it right here. someone help me!!! i have a flat tire!!! well it's good... good for me. what do you think? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
>> tucker: most of the country is just meeting neil gorsuch for the first time tonight. what is he like as a person and for that we go to someone who has known him for at least 25 years. served as president obama's ethics czar, he was gorsuch's classmate at harvard. they both graduated alongside president obama. that was an amazing class you had at harvard. what was he like? >> thanks for having me, he is very much like what you saw tonight from the white house. intelligent, well-spoken, kind, while dignified, he is a terrific guy. >> tucker: did you know he went to school -- did he stand out as someone especially
impressive? >> he was one of a group of conservatives, even then, that was a time at harvard law school of partisan sentiment in the legal ideology. it kind of foreshadowed the situation in the beltway today, tucker. it was one of those conservatives. i got along well with all of them. there were some who like me were a little louder in their views, mine liberal. we debate. it's soft-spoken, very penetrating questions, smart and listened to the answers. that was very, very impressive. >> tucker: i know that former president obama was involved in politics or debating legal ideology at harvard. the did they ever interact? >> you are testing my memory now. the three of us must have been in classes together at some
point but i don't remember any specific interaction. >> tucker: when you look at this, does he seem like this nomination -- does gorsuch seem like this decision out of the mainstream to you? >> he doesn't seem out of the conservative mainstream. he is in that kennedy mold, he worked for kennedy. the trends have swung a little to the right, he somewhat to the right of that but within the conservative mainstream, normally this would be a slam dunk nomination as his previous confirmation was to the circuit. the overhang of garland which has left many of us better, myself included, merrick garland no less intelligent or descent, or less deserving of a seat on that court. and the resistance to garland will create some storm clouds
for judge gorsuch. >> tucker: i believe that, both victims of this at the moment. great to see you. we will be covering on? ♪ 's but one president trump nominates a conservative judge, and advocate for religious freedom, and a strict constructn list to be the next justice of the supreme court. and now the fireworks begin. this is "special report." ♪ good evening, welcome to washington, i'm bret baier. this is a special edition of "special report" on president trump's nomination for the u.s. supreme court. exit polls show it was a major factor in his upset win in november. tonight, the president selected tenth u.s. circuit court of appeals judge, neil gorsuch, to fill the seat left